Why New York Detectives Don’t Always Wear Bulletproof Vests

[Rex G]

Some issued vests are torture to wear, and I can understand a street patrol officer wanting to opt-out. The last vest issued to me, even though I was measured by a rep from the vendor*, was such a torture device, interfering with my breathing, and interfering with my arm movements. When I handed it back in, at retirement, I had worn it for less than an hour, because that is how long I could tolerate it, before I pulled it out from under my uniform shirt, and went without armor for the rest of the shift. The next night, and for a while, I wore a slightly too-big vest I had previously bought from a local ex-deputy, in near-new condition.

My next step was to measure myself, and buy an off-the-shelf, new-old-stock “expired” vest from a reputable police supply place. They had an unwanted Level IIIA that was perfectly comfortable, and would stop more than the Level II issued vest. I knew that unworn Kevlar does not decay, so did not worry about protection. Notably, the vest I bought, for myself, was the same brand as the ill-fitting vest I had been issued.

I also decided to start researching plate carriers, and so ended my career wearing multi-curved Level III plates, with Level IIIA backers and side panels, when on patrol. I would wear the concealed IIIA vest when in uniform, while going to court, the academy, etc.

[BehindBlueI's]

Don't know. I'll try to find out if you'd like.

I'd find it interesting, but don't put yourself out if it's a bother.

Here, state law mandates that departments issue officers body armor.

[willie]

I once wrote grants to pay for vests. Those from small departments with limited funds might look at this avenue. Getting different folks to agree on details was a nightmare. Some guys would lose theirs???

[WobblyPossum]

I religiously wore armor when working uniformed patrol. It was required by department policy but I would have worn it regardless. If my department hadn’t issued armor, I would have bought my own. When I was a detective, I only armored up when making arrests or serving warrants. Like several posters have already stated, it’s not conducive to many of the duties of a suit and tie detective to walk around with body armor over their dress shirt. It makes it more difficult to build rapport with interviewees. Most of my interviews were with cooperative victims or witnesses. If I was interviewing suspects, I’d bring another detective with me for safety but I still likely wouldn’t armor up if the task was a field interview that wasn’t going to lead to an arrest.

In my new job, I don’t expect to wear armor much unless I’m making arrests or serving warrants either.

[0ddl0t]

Most know the risks but conduct themselves this way notwithstanding.

Same could be said for seatbelts.

[blues]

Same could be said for seatbelts.

It is what it is.

[lwt16]

I'd find it interesting, but don't put yourself out if it's a bother.

Here, state law mandates that departments issue officers body armor.

PM inbound.

[jnc36rcpd]

At my former agency, detectives do not usually wear armor except on planned warrant services and similar duties. While it is mandated, I'm not sure how frequently anyone vests up when making traffic stops.

Truth be told, I did not usually wear armor when I was commuting to the academy wearing a soft uniform. I did try to throw it on when jumping calls, but there is always risk in that plan.. One instructor did seem pretty consistent in wearing his armor when off campus.

I believe our street crime unit usually wears armor. No criticism, but it seems ironic since they work deep, deep, deep undercover when a concealed identity is crucial to their mission and very survival. Their covert mission is so secretive that they somewhat spearheaded the agency switch from the SIG 226 ("Too big! We'll be burned!") and 239 ("Too small! We'll run out of ammunition in a gunfight!") to the FNS-9 and FNS-9 Compact. In retrospect, we should have given them 229's and been done with it. Somehow standing in a group at the Seven-Eleven with uniformed officers doesn't compromise the unit mission, but whatta I know.

The Department has since transitioned to the Glock 19 for street crimes and the 17 for everyone else...except or the chief who insisted on a Glock 26.

[Gadfly]

Plain clothed Fed here. My vest rides in a lock box in the back of my issues SUV. Any planned arrest, the vest goes on. Day to day office work or surveillance most of the time, so it’s jeans, t shirts, sneakers or cowboy boots, but no vest.

I carry a 26 and one spare 17 round mag daily... I have a 17 if I don’t care about concealment. If we are doing heavy work, the vest gets worn.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Trooper224]

For nearly thirty years I wore body armor on the job and hated every minute of it. But, it was better than a sucking chest wound. Now that I'm retired and working as a CSO in the federal court system I still have to wear a vest and hate it even more. Now, instead of wearing it under my uniform, or in the form of an external carrier when I was on SWAT, I wear it between my blazer and shirt. The damned thing is like a flak jacket and the blazer isn't cut for it. It's all very uncomfortable in the extreme. The pay is good and the people are great. I have no complaints about anything except that damned vest. Since the creation of the CSO program in 1983, three have been killed by felonious gunfire. I'm more likely to get shot at the local IHOP at two in the morning. Given the overall threat level, I'd be willing to roll the dice and get rid of it if I could. There's a time and place for everything. Anyone who thinks you need to stay jocked up no matter what is either to green too know what they don't know, or they simply haven't done much LE work out of uniform.